FOR: Phil Woolas Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government.

THIS year is crunch time for local government.

There are very important changes to make and decisions to take. The Government set out its blueprint for the future last autumn.

Now government at all levels has to deliver that in reality, on the ground.

Behind the changes is a simple aim - to shift power, wherever it makes sense, from central government to local government, and from local government to communities and citizens.

Where it's about how to tackle the issues that are top of the "to do" list in an area, or a neighbourhood, or a community - then it usually does make sense.

Central government will still make sure that certain standards are met, wherever you live.

But we know the best way for each place to meet them may be different, and every place has its own priorities too.

When local government takes on more power and responsibility, it needs the quality of leadership to match.

We believe local leaders should have a higher profile so people know who runs their area and champions its interests. More like a modern Joseph Chamberlain, who stood down as Mayor of Birmingham 130 years ago, leaving the city "parked, paved, marketed... and improved."

We are offering local councils the choice of three types of leadership. All would result in people knowing more about their leaders and what they do.

The first is where voters in the area elect a mayor with real power.

The second is where voters elect a small executive, including a leader, to run the council.

And the third is where councillors elect the leader from among their members.

In each case they would normally serve a four-year term.

At present leaders are reselected - and could change - every year.

Four years gives the leaders time to see through the measures they promised and to make a difference to the life of the city and its citizens.

So, if Birmingham opted for a directly-elected mayor, you might see in the red corner Sir Albert Bore and in the blue corner Mike Whitby.

Perhaps Brummie-born Sir Digby Jones, ex-chief of the CBI, might be about to enter the ring.

These are critical choices for our great cities like Birmingham. With the right leadership, the quality of life gets better, businesses start up and thrive, and people are proud of their city.

This effect goes well beyond the city boundaries to dependent businesses and people who might work or relax there.

The national economy also depends on how well our major cities are doing. In recent years they have been prospering, but there is some way to go.

They need to compete not only with the best in Europe but with the best in the world.

We have been talking to the eight biggest cities outside London. We asked them to tell us what was holding them back.

The measures we are putting in place now reflect their answers.

They encourage city leaders to work closely with key players from public agencies, businesses and the voluntary sector.

There is a much better chance of success through pooling their ideas, expertise and knowledge.

In turn we are pooling government funding so they have more flexibility over what they can do.

This means they can join together to focus on the place and on building its future.

The blueprint gives local leaders more space to make the right decisions.

They will be able to tackle what matters to people in the city, be it crime or the state of the streets or the quality of services.

They will be leaders - and champions - not just of the city council, but of the city itself.

Where they don't have direct responsibility, they can influence other organisations or take steps to make things happen.

That's why the choice is critical - and why it has to be made by the people who know the city best. So I really welcome the Birmingham Mail's debate.

This is an excellent chance for the people of Birmingham, their leaders and potential leaders to talk about the issues and find out the facts.

You will be part of shaping Birmingham's future.

AGAINST: Coun Jim Whorwood, Lord Mayor of Birmingham 2001/2.

SO Middlesbrough's directly elected mayor is coming to Birmingham to take part in the debate.

Welcome, Ray, we will be pleased to show you real success.

Mr Mallon, a former local police chief, was elected on a campaign of zero tolerance for all crime. A populist platform.

Yes, crime has come down in Middlesbrough - but over the last three years offending has also been reduced in Birmingham.

The latest figures show crime levels in Middlesbrough way above those in Birmingham. Just look at the facts. Average crimes per thousand residents in Middlesbrough is 47 while in Birmingham it's only 30.

Statistics for specific crimes tells the same story. Vehicle crime: Middlesbrough 6.3, Birmingham 4.4. Domestic burglary: Middlesbrough 6.3, Birmingham 5.4. Violent crime: Middlesbrough 11.2, Birmingham 8.2. Clearly, the former police chief and now elected mayor of Middlesbrough has much to learn from Birmingham.

There are serious dangers in having a directly elected executive leader.

In the UK it is unusual to let one person have absolute power for four years. Even Tony Blair has to keep the support of his Cabinet.

If we go down the directly elected executive mayor route, within a very short period of time all the candidates would be the super-rich and/or super-glamorous.

This happens in the USA and it would inevitably happen here.

Do we really want a system where ordinary people - irrespective of their talents or ability - are excluded from high office? I do not.

If we have a directly-elected leader of Birmingham City Council, why not a directlyelected prime minister? A president. It is illogical to argue that the public must elect the council leader but not the leader of the government.

Now the other side.

The argument in favour of an all-powerful head is that you can get quick decisions. But is that necessary and is it an advantage?

Surely, in a democratic society, we need time to listen to a range of views and let other people have their say. The modern view is that there should be wide consultation before making a decision - and consultation takes time.

It takes years to prepare and design, for example, the NEC. So why is it essential to make a quick decision?

The arguments in favour of a directly-elected executive head of the council are so weak as to defy description. No company allows its shareholders to elect the chief executive - it is left to the company board to decide.

So why do a few well-known people want a city leader directly elected by the public?

If one person had ultimate responsibility, it would be easier for central government to get its way - with bribes of cash or perhaps a seat in the Lords. You can't bribe 120 councillors.

Labour lost leadership of the city council and it is very sore. To get its own back, it ignores the successes of the present administration, and snipes.

Certain people are trying to get a top job via the back door. They know that masses of money spent on glossy publicity will get them elected.

There is plenty wrong with the organisation of the city council, but it is important that changes are based on real evidence.

The Big Debate Live takes place at the Council House, Victoria Square at 6pm. Admission is free.